By 
The Supreme Court comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that a court cannot block someone from continuing a case in a foreign court just because it thinks the foreign court might later give a decision that India won’t recognize or enforce. This case was about a divorce dispute involving courts in India and the UK.
Background of the Case
A husband and wife got married in Kolkata in 2018. They later lived together in London for a long time. In 2024, the husband filed for divorce in the Alipore Family Court in India. After that, the wife filed her own divorce and financial case in the UK Family Court, based on the ground that the marriage had broken down beyond repair.
The UK case also dealt with temporary maintenance payments and questions about which country’s court should actually handle the matter.
The husband then went to the Alipore Civil Court asking it to stop his wife from continuing her case in the UK. The trial court agreed and issued an order (without even hearing the wife’s side) blocking her from proceeding in the UK.
The trial court’s reasoning was that “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” isn’t a valid ground for divorce under Indian law, so any UK decision based on it couldn’t be enforced in India anyway. It also worried about two courts handling the same dispute at once.
What the High Court and Supreme Court Said:
The Calcutta High Court cancelled this order, pointing out that the UK Family Court was already looking into the question of which court should handle the case. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court.
The Supreme Court explained that this kind of order, called an “anti-suit injunction,” is a rare and special remedy. As the Court put it: “Anti-suit injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit or proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court.” These orders are based on fairness principles, not strict law.
How Courts Should Decide on Such Orders:
The Court said that before blocking someone from a foreign case, a court must check:
1) Does it have legal authority over the person it wants to restrict?
2) Would refusing the block actually harm justice?
3) Respect for other countries’ courts (called “comity of courts”)
4) If two courts could hear the case, which one makes more sense given convenience and whether the foreign case is unfair or troublesome
Indian Courts Can’t Control Foreign Courts:
The Court stressed that an Indian court has no power to directly control what a foreign court does. It said: “A court in one sovereign jurisdiction, cannot stay proceedings pending before a court in another sovereign jurisdiction, for the simple reason that courts do not possess appellate or supervisory powers across political boundaries.’’
This Should Not Be a Routine Order:
The Court made clear this kind of block should not be handed out casually. It said: “The grant of anti-suit injunction is not a matter of course,” and added, “The anti-suit injunction orders are not supposed to be a routine judicial exercise.”
It also added :
“the Courts should be “extremely slow” unless the pure legal or jurisdictional considerations are applicable, to issue the anti-suit injunction and thereby stall the proceedings in a court in the foreign country.”
The Court also referred to an earlier case, Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, repeating that: “Before passing the order of anti-suit injunction, courts should be very cautious and careful, and it should be granted sparingly and not as a matter of routine as such orders involve a court impinging on the jurisdiction of another court.”
Why the Husband’s Argument Failed:
The husband argued the UK case should be stopped since “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” isn’t a valid divorce ground under Indian law (the Hindu Marriage Act).
The Supreme Court rejected this, saying you can’t just assume the foreign court is using its power wrongly. Just because a ground doesn’t exist in Indian law doesn’t mean the wife would automatically win her UK case on that basis.
The Court found the original block was issued too early and based on assumptions. It said: “The main proceedings are pending, and all the issues are at large including the jurisdiction of that court.” It further noted: “On the speculative consideration that the suit would be decreed by the UK Family Court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, anti-suit injunction would not have been granted by the Alipore Trial Court.”
Strong Ties to the UK:
The Court also pointed out that the couple had lived in London for a long time, had their marital home there, and had built their financial life there, meaning the UK case had solid, genuine connections to that country.
The UK Case Wasn’t Even Finished Yet:
Finally, the Court noted that the UK proceedings hadn’t concluded when the block was issued.
It said: “One of the factors, which should dissuade the court from granting anti-suit injunction is that the proceedings before the foreign court which are sought to be interjected, are yet to conclude.”
It added: “No legitimate ground or logical reason would generally arise to stay the proceedings before the foreign court by way of anti-suit injunction, when they are at an inchoate stage and have not culminated into a final decision.”
Final Outcome:
The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision and dismissed the husband’s appeal. The Court clarified that both parties are still free to challenge any future or final decisions from the UK Family Court through the proper legal channels.
Case Details: MIHIR PRAKASH BAJORIA VERSUS VIDUSHI JAIN BAJORIA
